3 ms·
I disagree. Most people's purchase decisions are based on price and they would happily accept a device that has inconvenience of sliding smartphone VS just putt
by sytelus 11y ago
I disagree. Most people's purchase decisions are based on price and they would happily accept a device that has inconvenience of sliding smartphone VS just putting on glasses. This if, of course, given that experiences are pretty close in quality. There are technically no reason that quality would be too inferior with smartphone based devices as long as smartphones have some additional bells and whistles. The smartphone is a powerful computer already equipped with tons of sensors, CPU, GPU, batteries and a large screen. I think only the field of vision may be bit impacted but I highly suspect average people would want to shell out another $500 for bit larger FoV.
- stcredzero 11y agoPerhaps there's a social barrier to VR being more than a niche device? > There are technically no reason that quality would be too inferior with smartphone based devices as long as smartphones have some additional bells and whistles. According to the Oculus folks, 90Hz is the minimal refresh rate for avoiding nausea in too much of the population. Their latency target with regards to refresh after head tracking input was 5ms, last time I read about it. There's a reason why their 1st commercially released device is going to cost $600 and require a hefty gaming PC.